Did JW have that "JP feel"?

I'm sure most here can understand what I mean when I say that. That unique Jurassic Park atmosphere. JP had it, TLW had it, JP3 did but to a lesser degree. But I'm not sure JW did. It felt different. Something was missing. Even when the kids were exploring the visitors center, I didn't get that Jurassic Park feeling. Is it the shiny look everything has? Is it the lack of terror? The raptor squad was cool and all (and I like how they went rogue for a while towards the end), but there used to be a time where you'd hear the name velociraptor and start dreading what is to come. Indominus didn't give me the sense of terror that the t-rex did in the first movie though some of the scenes were great (such as crashing into the aviary). What is the reason for all this? Is it the general lack of suspense?

Not really. The last movie to have the JP feel to it is TLW. I feel like JW is too much of a flashy action movie and the premise of JP3 is too dumb from the beginning for either to feel like a JP movie.

I liked the exploration of the ruined Visitor's Centre, but it did not really feel like Jurassic Park so much as a distant echo of it. I think one of the main issues really is the look of the film; its too clean, bright and modern looking. Objectively speaking it is good cinematography, but it's not fitting to the character of the previous films. To give JP3 some credit, the use of fog and contrasting light and shadow gave the new jungles on Sorna some added character, and I find myself regarding the Aviary scene more highly, in comparison to when the Pterosaurs break out and cause havoc on Main Street which is more chaotic and less driven by suspense.

Even my own attempts to explain it as reflective of how much Isla Nublar has been taken over by the Masrani Corporation, and there's no real wilderness to the island anymore, aren't completely satisfactory. When the ACU squad are taken out by the I. rex there should have been a more authentic look to that scene. When the Raptors turned on the InGen mercenaries, the heightened contrast gave that scene some much needed atmosphere which fed into the tension. It helps that it took place at night, in contrast to most of the film. While we never see it rain, the Main Street looks like it sustained some rain, giving the final battle a San Diego climax kind of look. But these scenes come in only in the third act, after the park has reached the point of no-return.

No

It had its own feel, as it should have.

No. It has too much of a Marvel summer movie film feel. Gorgeous, funny, likable characters and great action sequences.

But i never felt any sense of mystery or wonder. I know that JP3 is by all means a mindless action flick. But even in that i felt that old JP feel in the movie at certain points.

JW just doesn't have that little pinch of magic. And maybe it's all my nostalgia talking.

But that is how i feel.

Troyal1 wrote:

No. It has too much of a Marvel summer movie film feel. Gorgeous, funny, likable characters and great action sequences.

But i never felt any sense of mystery or wonder. I know that JP3 is by all means a mindless action flick. But even in that i felt that old JP feel in the movie at certain points.

JW just doesn't have that little pinch of magic. And maybe it's all my nostalgia talking.

But that is how i feel.  

That's where I disagree with you (as well as with most of the fanbase, apparently).

While JW was certainly lacking in the tension department, for me, it was the first film since the original that really captured a sense of awe and wonder. It captured what hooked me as a child, which neither other sequel was able to do fully. TLW did to an extent, and JP3 didn't at all, but JW did to a point that I haven't felt since the original film, and for me, that was the biggest positive that I took away from JW. The feeling it gave me. It brought me back to my childhood, and I left the theater after seeing it with the biggest grin on my face.

Seems like we don't talk about any of the positives that JW brought to the table though. Every JW thread seems to be a thinly veiled (or not so thinly veiled) "Let's bash JW" thread, by which I mean that it's always the negatives that are talked about. Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Seems like we don't talk about any of the positives that JW brought to the table though. Every JW thread seems to be a thinly veiled (or not so thinly veiled) "Let's bash JW" thread, by which I mean that it's always the negatives that are talked about. Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Why don't you complain of the same exact thing happening with JP3?

What, because it's not a movie you particularly enjoy, the same logic doesn't apply to it?

Anyway, this is a forum. Very small forum with small user base. The GA reception isn't reflected particularly well here. If it was, TLW would also be much less appreciated in general. Also, opinions may change from initial reactions.

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Seems like we don't talk about any of the positives that JW brought to the table though. Every JW thread seems to be a thinly veiled (or not so thinly veiled) "Let's bash JW" thread, by which I mean that it's always the negatives that are talked about. Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Why don't you complain of the same exact thing happening with JP3?

What, because it's not a movie you particularly enjoy, the same logic doesn't apply to it?

Quote :

Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Also, I see the positives from JP3 mentioned all time, even in this very thread, despite the fact that most people who aren't you usually cite it as the worst film in the franchise.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Seems like we don't talk about any of the positives that JW brought to the table though. Every JW thread seems to be a thinly veiled (or not so thinly veiled) "Let's bash JW" thread, by which I mean that it's always the negatives that are talked about. Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Why don't you complain of the same exact thing happening with JP3?

What, because it's not a movie you particularly enjoy, the same logic doesn't apply to it?

Quote :

Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Also, I see the positives from JP3 mentioned all time, even in this very thread, despite the fact that most people who aren't you usually cite it as the worst film in the franchise.

That's a very broad term, fandom.

Then there are 369 registered members on this forum of which probably like 30? really contribute actively or semi actively to threads you are talking about. That creates environment of very specific opinions.

And as for the initial reception itself, it wasn't as cut and dried as you paint it to have been. There were other people disappointed as well, not just me and some weirdos.

JP3 gets occassionally given positive remarks, but so does JW in almost every thread. Just because you apparently go pass them doesn't mean they don't exist. What, is everybody supposed to celebrate it with open arms? Why?

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Seems like we don't talk about any of the positives that JW brought to the table though. Every JW thread seems to be a thinly veiled (or not so thinly veiled) "Let's bash JW" thread, by which I mean that it's always the negatives that are talked about. Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Why don't you complain of the same exact thing happening with JP3?

What, because it's not a movie you particularly enjoy, the same logic doesn't apply to it?

Quote :

Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Also, I see the positives from JP3 mentioned all time, even in this very thread, despite the fact that most people who aren't you usually cite it as the worst film in the franchise.

That's a very broad term, fandom.

Then there are 369 registered members on this forum of which probably like 30? really contribute actively or semi actively to threads you are talking about. That creates environment of very specific opinions.

And as for the initial reception itself, it wasn't as cut and dried as you paint it to have been. There were other people disappointed as well, not just me and some weirdos.

JP3 gets ocassionally given positive remarks, but so does JW in almost every thread. Just because you apparently go pass them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'm not "painting" anything. It did "generally" get a positive reception.

Please note the word "generally", which I underlined and put in quotes.

Quote :

gen·er·al·ly

in general terms; without regard to particulars or exceptions.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Seems like we don't talk about any of the positives that JW brought to the table though. Every JW thread seems to be a thinly veiled (or not so thinly veiled) "Let's bash JW" thread, by which I mean that it's always the negatives that are talked about. Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Why don't you complain of the same exact thing happening with JP3?

What, because it's not a movie you particularly enjoy, the same logic doesn't apply to it?

Quote :

Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Also, I see the positives from JP3 mentioned all time, even in this very thread, despite the fact that most people who aren't you usually cite it as the worst film in the franchise.

That's a very broad term, fandom.

Then there are 369 registered members on this forum of which probably like 30? really contribute actively or semi actively to threads you are talking about. That creates environment of very specific opinions.

And as for the initial reception itself, it wasn't as cut and dried as you paint it to have been. There were other people disappointed as well, not just me and some weirdos.

JP3 gets ocassionally given positive remarks, but so does JW in almost every thread. Just because you apparently go pass them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'm not "painting" anything. It did "generally" get a positive reception.

"Generally" does not reflect this forum.

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Seems like we don't talk about any of the positives that JW brought to the table though. Every JW thread seems to be a thinly veiled (or not so thinly veiled) "Let's bash JW" thread, by which I mean that it's always the negatives that are talked about. Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Why don't you complain of the same exact thing happening with JP3?

What, because it's not a movie you particularly enjoy, the same logic doesn't apply to it?

Quote :

Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Also, I see the positives from JP3 mentioned all time, even in this very thread, despite the fact that most people who aren't you usually cite it as the worst film in the franchise.

That's a very broad term, fandom.

Then there are 369 registered members on this forum of which probably like 30? really contribute actively or semi actively to threads you are talking about. That creates environment of very specific opinions.

And as for the initial reception itself, it wasn't as cut and dried as you paint it to have been. There were other people disappointed as well, not just me and some weirdos.

JP3 gets ocassionally given positive remarks, but so does JW in almost every thread. Just because you apparently go pass them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'm not "painting" anything. It did "generally" get a positive reception.

"Generally" does not reflect this forum.

"Generally" certainly reflected JPLegacy, which is where we would be having this discussion had it not been shut down.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Seems like we don't talk about any of the positives that JW brought to the table though. Every JW thread seems to be a thinly veiled (or not so thinly veiled) "Let's bash JW" thread, by which I mean that it's always the negatives that are talked about. Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Why don't you complain of the same exact thing happening with JP3?

What, because it's not a movie you particularly enjoy, the same logic doesn't apply to it?

Quote :

Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Also, I see the positives from JP3 mentioned all time, even in this very thread, despite the fact that most people who aren't you usually cite it as the worst film in the franchise.

That's a very broad term, fandom.

Then there are 369 registered members on this forum of which probably like 30? really contribute actively or semi actively to threads you are talking about. That creates environment of very specific opinions.

And as for the initial reception itself, it wasn't as cut and dried as you paint it to have been. There were other people disappointed as well, not just me and some weirdos.

JP3 gets ocassionally given positive remarks, but so does JW in almost every thread. Just because you apparently go pass them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'm not "painting" anything. It did "generally" get a positive reception.

"Generally" does not reflect this forum.

"Generally" certainly reflected JPLegacy, which is where we would be having this discussion had it not been shut down.

That was a forum of 10,000+ members, not comparable to the situation here at all.

But if you want to go shouting positives about JW to every thread for some reason, then go, who's stopping you? And if that's not to everyone's liking... well almost every time someone writes a positive about JP3, it gets counter argumented somehow. If JP3 can / has to put up with it, then JW should as well, if that is it's fate.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

That's where I disagree with you (as well as with most of the fanbase, apparently).

While JW was certainly lacking in the tension department, for me, it was the first film since the original that really captured a sense of awe and wonder. It captured what hooked me as a child, which neither other sequel was able to do fully. TLW did to an extent, and JP3 didn't at all, but JW did to a point that I haven't felt since the original film, and for me, that was the biggest positive that I took away from JW. The feeling it gave me. It brought me back to my childhood, and I left the theater after seeing it with the biggest grin on my face.

Seems like we don't talk about any of the positives that JW brought to the table though. Every JW thread seems to be a thinly veiled (or not so thinly veiled) "Let's bash JW" thread, by which I mean that it's always the negatives that are talked about. Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

For what its worth, I try to stick up for all of the JP sequels, while obviously still maintaining that the original is the best and deserves its classic status for every reason that everyone's stated. When I look back on the strongly positive posts I made for JW on other sites and blogs, I still mostly stand by them, including the feelings of nostalgia or feeling like a kid again. Even if my opinion on the film were to get worse over time, I still have fond memories of seeing it opening day in 2015, and the fun time spent in London before that.

Actually, there's almost a certain ironic sense of humour in defending the JP sequels (while obviously admitting their flaws when I need to). When I say I watch these movies not for the "CGI eye candy" or to "turn my brain off" but for the story and themes (even when they're not presented strongly at the forefront). The funny looks and reactions people give me, like I'm crazy, yet I never feel embarrassed!

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Seems like we don't talk about any of the positives that JW brought to the table though. Every JW thread seems to be a thinly veiled (or not so thinly veiled) "Let's bash JW" thread, by which I mean that it's always the negatives that are talked about. Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Why don't you complain of the same exact thing happening with JP3?

What, because it's not a movie you particularly enjoy, the same logic doesn't apply to it?

Quote :

Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Also, I see the positives from JP3 mentioned all time, even in this very thread, despite the fact that most people who aren't you usually cite it as the worst film in the franchise.

That's a very broad term, fandom.

Then there are 369 registered members on this forum of which probably like 30? really contribute actively or semi actively to threads you are talking about. That creates environment of very specific opinions.

And as for the initial reception itself, it wasn't as cut and dried as you paint it to have been. There were other people disappointed as well, not just me and some weirdos.

JP3 gets ocassionally given positive remarks, but so does JW in almost every thread. Just because you apparently go pass them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'm not "painting" anything. It did "generally" get a positive reception.

"Generally" does not reflect this forum.

"Generally" certainly reflected JPLegacy, which is where we would be having this discussion had it not been shut down.

That was a forum of 10,000+ members, not comparable to the situation here at all.

But if you want to go shouting positives about JW to every thread, then go, who's stopping you? And if it's not to everyone's liking... well almost every time someone writes a positive about JP3, it gets counter argumented somehow. If JP3 can / has to put up with it, then JW should as well

10,000+ members, of which only a fraction  were actually active.

To your second "point", I do "shout positives" about JW...almost as often as you "shout negatives" about it.

I was expressing my confusion as to why a film that is at least somewhat well regarded is shat on as often as it is, which in and of itself is not a confrontational question to ask, but which you chose to take as one.

Being perfectly blunt, the only reason you take issue with this is because you personally didn't like the film, which you've made apparent time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

Also, there is a difference between simply having a negative feeling towards a film, and continuously driving it into the ground over and over again. I like to think that, at the very least, I've spared JP3 of that fate.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

For what its worth, I try to stick up for all of the JP sequels, while obviously still maintaining that the original is the best and deserves its classic status for every reason that everyone's stated. When I look back on the strongly positive posts I made for JW on other sites and blogs, I still mostly stand by them, including the feelings of nostalgia or feeling like a kid again. Even if my opinion on the film were to get worse over time, I still have fond memories of seeing it opening day in 2015, and the fun time spent in London before that.

Actually, there's almost a certain ironic sense of humour in defending the JP sequels (while obviously admitting their flaws when I need to). When I say I watch these movies not for the "CGI eye candy" or to "turn my brain off" but for the story and themes (even when they're not presented strongly at the forefront). The funny looks and reactions people give me, like I'm crazy, yet I never feel embarrassed!

I asked a girl a year ago what she thought of Jurassic Park (as lead up question to asking whether she's read Crichton's novel, we were in library after all). She just immediately responded that all the sequels were terrible. I nodded in agreement to avoid further explanations. I mean technically, she's wasn't wrong... technically

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Seems like we don't talk about any of the positives that JW brought to the table though. Every JW thread seems to be a thinly veiled (or not so thinly veiled) "Let's bash JW" thread, by which I mean that it's always the negatives that are talked about. Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Why don't you complain of the same exact thing happening with JP3?

What, because it's not a movie you particularly enjoy, the same logic doesn't apply to it?

Quote :

Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

Also, I see the positives from JP3 mentioned all time, even in this very thread, despite the fact that most people who aren't you usually cite it as the worst film in the franchise.

That's a very broad term, fandom.

Then there are 369 registered members on this forum of which probably like 30? really contribute actively or semi actively to threads you are talking about. That creates environment of very specific opinions.

And as for the initial reception itself, it wasn't as cut and dried as you paint it to have been. There were other people disappointed as well, not just me and some weirdos.

JP3 gets ocassionally given positive remarks, but so does JW in almost every thread. Just because you apparently go pass them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I'm not "painting" anything. It did "generally" get a positive reception.

"Generally" does not reflect this forum.

"Generally" certainly reflected JPLegacy, which is where we would be having this discussion had it not been shut down.

That was a forum of 10,000+ members, not comparable to the situation here at all.

But if you want to go shouting positives about JW to every thread, then go, who's stopping you? And if it's not to everyone's liking... well almost every time someone writes a positive about JP3, it gets counter argumented somehow. If JP3 can / has to put up with it, then JW should as well

10,000+ members, of which only a fraction  were actually active.

To your second "point", I do "shout positives" about JW...almost as often as you "shout negatives" about it.

I was expressing my confusion as to why a film that is at least somewhat well regarded is shat on as often as it is, which in and of itself is not a confrontational question to ask, but which you chose to take as one.

Being perfectly blunt, the only reason you take issue with this is because you personally didn't like the film, which you've made apparent time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

Active members of 10,000+ is more than active members of 300+, anyone can do the math.

I answered your question, so what's the problem here? It's a small community where the opinions of individuals get loud volume because of that. On top of that, possibility watered down opinions since 2015, but that's just speculation.

Oh, and as for that typical ending paragraph. About of half of your posts on this forum complain about my complaining, which you've made apparent time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

No. It has too much of a Marvel summer movie film feel. Gorgeous, funny, likable characters and great action sequences.

But i never felt any sense of mystery or wonder. I know that JP3 is by all means a mindless action flick. But even in that i felt that old JP feel in the movie at certain points.

JW just doesn't have that little pinch of magic. And maybe it's all my nostalgia talking.

But that is how i feel.  

That's where I disagree with you (as well as with most of the fanbase, apparently).

While JW was certainly lacking in the tension department, for me, it was the first film since the original that really captured a sense of awe and wonder. It captured what hooked me as a child, which neither other sequel was able to do fully. TLW did to an extent, and JP3 didn't at all, but JW did to a point that I haven't felt since the original film, and for me, that was the biggest positive that I took away from JW. The feeling it gave me. It brought me back to my childhood, and I left the theater after seeing it with the biggest grin on my face.

Seems like we don't talk about any of the positives that JW brought to the table though. Every JW thread seems to be a thinly veiled (or not so thinly veiled) "Let's bash JW" thread, by which I mean that it's always the negatives that are talked about. Never the positives, which perplexes me, as it seemed to get a generally positive reception throughout the fandom upon its release.

That's a fair point! But the only thing I can really say to you there my friend is that I didn't feel that wonder.

And yes I think I felt pretty positive about JW after it's release, but just like with TFA its Honeymoon phase wore out pretty quick with me.

There are things I like about the movie. But so much of it is weighted down in things that I felt were missed opportunities at many turns. I mean I don't feel like I go out of my way to bash the movie. I just answered the topic with how I felt.

Troyal1 wrote:

I mean I don't feel like I go out of my way to bash the movie. I just answered the topic with how I felt.

I know, man. and I'm certainly not implying that you go out of your way to bash the film. Like I said earlier, there's a difference between being critical based on how you feel and trolling, and in all the time I've known you you've certainly never crossed that line.

Nuffin but love my man

It didn't feel any less JP to me than the other sequels, I don't really know what you're all meaning.

The only part that didn't feel very JP to me was the final T-Rex v Indominus Fight, that felt like it was directed like a super hero movie's final act.

Another thing I didn't like is all three JP films begin with an "event" that leads up to the movie but JW instead only has what the Indominus hatching and then a fake out? ugh. I hated that so much. It really helped set the mood in the previous movies.

sdp wrote:

It didn't feel any less JP to me than the other sequels, I don't really know what you're all meaning.

The only part that didn't feel very JP to me was the final T-Rex v Indominus Fight, that felt like it was directed like a super hero movie's final act.

Another thing I didn't like is all three JP films begin with an "event" that leads up to the movie but JW instead only has what the Indominus hatching and then a fake out? ugh. I hated that so much. It really helped set the mood in the previous movies.

This is a very good point and something I found myself disappointed in as well. Here's my top ten list of disappointments, after having had almost two years to let this movie sink in:

-Dull opening (both the indominus hatching and the sentimental scene with the Christmas music)
-All the "*wink, wink*, does this remind you of anything?" Jurassic Park references
-Silly, unintelligent dialogue
-Chris Pratt mocking the indominus, I hated that, same goes for the guy in the control room
-"We need more teeth"
-Kiddy subplot taking us out of the movie every five minutes
-Romance plot, kissing in the middle of a pterosaur attack
-Hoskins being killed in the middle of an otherwise interesting monologue
-Prolonged apatasaurus death scene, I found it uncomfortable to watch
-Spinosaurus skeleton being destroyed as a restitution to butthurt t-rex fanboys
-Zack being bored throughout the movie and being a total dick in general

I felt like it lacked some real mercy of nature moments to it. You felt like Zack and Gray Mitchell were lost in the Park, but unlike "Jurassic Park", you felt like they were still really in the Park. It lacked that isolation feeling. You didn't feel cut off from the modern world, because the Park was so modernized. Perhaps it could have felt this way to audiences in theaters in 1993, but I felt there was just something about it that didn't feel right. It felt kinda artificial. Not in the same sense "Jurassic Park ///" did, it felt more "Disneyfied" artificial. That kind of feeling where you're 12 and you're at Disney World with your 5 year old little sibling kind of artificial. The magic is gone. You want to feel it, but you know better, you know it can't last. You put on a face for your family, make them think you're enjoying yourself, but inside, you know that it's all a front. You've seen the documentaries, you know that nothing in "Jurassic World" is real, and that's acknowledged right in the movie by Wu.

I also can't handle the distinct lack of real atmosphere in JW. It doesn't feel right. It feels sterilized. There's an over abundance of shiny metallic surfaces that turns me off from the film on an aesthetics level. It's a good movie, but to me, it lacks that "Jurassic Park" feel that makes it a great Jurassic Park movie. It's like somebody took the Visitor Center kitchen aesthetic and applied it to a whole park. Like I said, sterile. It feels more like an Orlando theme park than the resort of Jurassic Park. I suppose this is a matter of personal preference, but I will always enjoy the resort feel from the first movie more. I'm a guy who enjoys an island resort with thatched roof buildings, rich wooden inlays, and intricately carved thematic pillars. I like being chauffeured around in a spacious American made SUV, seeing dinosaur from the plush comfort of a car seat, and enjoying fine dining in the Visitor Center's buffet. I'll take than any day over the banal. boring, theme park environment that I could get in Orlando, or 6-Flags. I'm a guy with expensive tastes. I will say that one thing I think the designers did for "Jurassic World" that was better than "Jurassic Park" was improving the dinosaur sighting experience. In the old Park, the enclosures were much too big, and you couldn't see anything. I mean, if the test tour was to be your average tour, no thanks. I wouldn't pay that much money to not see dinosaurs. Another complaint I have is about the state of the Visitor Center in "Jurassic World". It's horribly unrecognizable. It wasn't until the boys opened the doors, and they made that "oomph" noise from the first movie that I recognized it as the Visitor Center.

Lost wrote:

-Prolonged apatasaurus death scene, I found it uncomfortable to watch
-Spinosaurus skeleton being destroyed as a restitution to butthurt t-rex fanboys

While I mostly agree and see eye-to-eye with the majority of items on your list, I do have some comments on the highlighted ones here. I personally did find the Spinosaurus skeleton being destroyed extremely satisfying, and in total honestly it took Jurassic World to lay my somewhat childish antagonism towards Jurassic Park III to rest because this was the restoration of the T. rex in the eyes of many fans (myself included). Also bearing in mind that it's just a skeleton and not like she ripped the head off of a living Spino to make a point, and simply put it's enough of a visual statement to bury the tomahawk and not want to see a rematch like I secretly wanted for many years before 2015.

I am curious what it is about the Apatosaurus death scene that you found bad/disappointing. I know you stated that it was drawn out and uncomfortable to watch, but it is meant to be an emotional gut-punch of a scene. It didn't come off as a mean spirited death for the sake of a mean spirited death, but was integral to Claire seeing the dinosaurs for the animals they are as Owen tried to comfort the Apatosaur in her dying moments. And yes I did get emotional watching it (and got a bit of The Land Before Time vibes from it) so now I'm mostly curious as to how you would have changed that scene.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Lost wrote:

-Prolonged apatasaurus death scene, I found it uncomfortable to watch
-Spinosaurus skeleton being destroyed as a restitution to butthurt t-rex fanboys

I am curious what it is about the Apatosaurus death scene that you found bad/disappointing. I know you stated that it was drawn out and uncomfortable to watch, but it is meant to be an emotional gut-punch of a scene. It didn't come off as a mean spirited death for the sake of a mean spirited death, but was integral to Claire seeing the dinosaurs for the animals they are as Owen tried to comfort the Apatosaur in her dying moments. And yes I did get emotional watching it (and got a bit of The Land Before Time vibes from it) so now I'm mostly curious as to how you would have changed that scene.

Well, I'm not sure I would've put it in. And if it needs to be there, why does it have to be dragged out? I guess I just don't like watching uncomfortable things. It's upsetting/disturbing to see an animal die, and I never look forward to that scene, which is why I would prefer it wasn't there. I see your point about Claire seeing the dinosaurs as animals etc., but it was just way too long and uncomfortable to watch for me.

Lost wrote:

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Lost wrote:

-Prolonged apatasaurus death scene, I found it uncomfortable to watch
-Spinosaurus skeleton being destroyed as a restitution to butthurt t-rex fanboys

I am curious what it is about the Apatosaurus death scene that you found bad/disappointing. I know you stated that it was drawn out and uncomfortable to watch, but it is meant to be an emotional gut-punch of a scene. It didn't come off as a mean spirited death for the sake of a mean spirited death, but was integral to Claire seeing the dinosaurs for the animals they are as Owen tried to comfort the Apatosaur in her dying moments. And yes I did get emotional watching it (and got a bit of The Land Before Time vibes from it) so now I'm mostly curious as to how you would have changed that scene.

Well, I'm not sure I would've put it in. And if it needs to be there, why does it have to be dragged out? I guess I just don't like watching uncomfortable things. It's upsetting/disturbing to see an animal die, and I never look forward to that scene, which is why I would prefer it wasn't there. I see your point about Claire seeing the dinosaurs as animals etc., but it was just way too long and uncomfortable to watch for me.

It's true that most people just don't like seeing animals suffer period. As much as I get the context of that scene in the film, I'm not so resilient to seeing wounded or suffering animals in real life. One time I took a baby rabbit that had been caught by my family's cat to the edge of our field, where it took to the safety of a nearby burrow, shaken but uninjured. So, I do understand.

CT-1138 wrote:

I felt like it lacked some real mercy of nature moments to it. You felt like Zack and Gray Mitchell  were lost in the Park, but unlike "Jurassic Park", you felt like they were still really in the Park. It lacked that isolation feeling. You didn't feel cut off from the modern world, because the Park was so modernized. Perhaps it could have felt this way to audiences in theaters in 1993, but I felt there was just something about it that didn't feel right. It felt kinda artificial. Not in the same sense "Jurassic Park ///" did, it felt more "Disneyfied" artificial. That kind of feeling where you're 12 and you're at Disney World with your 5 year old little sibling kind of artificial. The magic is gone. You want to feel it, but you know better, you know it can't last. You put on a face for your family, make them think you're enjoying yourself, but inside, you know that it's all a front. You've seen the documentaries, you know that nothing in "Jurassic World" is real, and that's acknowledged right in the movie by Wu.

I also can't handle the distinct lack of real atmosphere in JW. It doesn't feel right. It feels sterilized. There's an over abundance of shiny metallic surfaces that turns me off from the film on an aesthetics level. It's a good movie, but to me, it lacks that "Jurassic Park" feel that makes it a great Jurassic Park movie. It's like somebody took the Visitor Center kitchen aesthetic and applied it to a whole park. Like I said, sterile. It feels more like an Orlando theme park than the resort of Jurassic Park. I suppose this is a matter of personal preference, but I will always enjoy the resort feel from the first movie more. I'm a guy who enjoys an island resort with thatched roof buildings, rich wooden inlays, and intricately carved thematic pillars. I like being chauffeured around in a spacious American made SUV, seeing dinosaur from the plush comfort of a car seat, and enjoying fine dining in the Visitor Center's buffet. I'll take than any day over the banal. boring, theme park environment that I could get in Orlando, or 6-Flags. I'm a guy with expensive tastes. I will say that one thing I think the designers did for "Jurassic World" that was better than "Jurassic Park" was improving the dinosaur sighting experience. In the old Park, the enclosures were much too big, and you couldn't see anything. I mean, if the test tour was to be your average tour, no thanks. I wouldn't pay that much money to not see dinosaurs. Another complaint I have is about the state of the Visitor Center in "Jurassic World". It's horribly unrecognizable. It wasn't until the boys opened the doors, and they made that "oomph" noise from the first movie that I recognized it as the Visitor Center.

I've always wanted to ask you, what did you think of the San Diego part of TLW? I'm asking because I know you enjoy TLW on many levels and that part kind of sticks out from the rest.

Lost wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

I felt like it lacked some real mercy of nature moments to it. You felt like Zack and Gray Mitchell  were lost in the Park, but unlike "Jurassic Park", you felt like they were still really in the Park. It lacked that isolation feeling. You didn't feel cut off from the modern world, because the Park was so modernized. Perhaps it could have felt this way to audiences in theaters in 1993, but I felt there was just something about it that didn't feel right. It felt kinda artificial. Not in the same sense "Jurassic Park ///" did, it felt more "Disneyfied" artificial. That kind of feeling where you're 12 and you're at Disney World with your 5 year old little sibling kind of artificial. The magic is gone. You want to feel it, but you know better, you know it can't last. You put on a face for your family, make them think you're enjoying yourself, but inside, you know that it's all a front. You've seen the documentaries, you know that nothing in "Jurassic World" is real, and that's acknowledged right in the movie by Wu.

I also can't handle the distinct lack of real atmosphere in JW. It doesn't feel right. It feels sterilized. There's an over abundance of shiny metallic surfaces that turns me off from the film on an aesthetics level. It's a good movie, but to me, it lacks that "Jurassic Park" feel that makes it a great Jurassic Park movie. It's like somebody took the Visitor Center kitchen aesthetic and applied it to a whole park. Like I said, sterile. It feels more like an Orlando theme park than the resort of Jurassic Park. I suppose this is a matter of personal preference, but I will always enjoy the resort feel from the first movie more. I'm a guy who enjoys an island resort with thatched roof buildings, rich wooden inlays, and intricately carved thematic pillars. I like being chauffeured around in a spacious American made SUV, seeing dinosaur from the plush comfort of a car seat, and enjoying fine dining in the Visitor Center's buffet. I'll take than any day over the banal. boring, theme park environment that I could get in Orlando, or 6-Flags. I'm a guy with expensive tastes. I will say that one thing I think the designers did for "Jurassic World" that was better than "Jurassic Park" was improving the dinosaur sighting experience. In the old Park, the enclosures were much too big, and you couldn't see anything. I mean, if the test tour was to be your average tour, no thanks. I wouldn't pay that much money to not see dinosaurs. Another complaint I have is about the state of the Visitor Center in "Jurassic World". It's horribly unrecognizable. It wasn't until the boys opened the doors, and they made that "oomph" noise from the first movie that I recognized it as the Visitor Center.

I've always wanted to ask you, what did you think of the San Diego part of TLW? I'm asking because I know you enjoy TLW on many levels and that part kind of sticks out from the rest.

I love it for what it is, I mean I always love more T. rex, but I do believe that the extended Worker Village ending would have been a much more interesting and fantastic ending.

CT-1138 wrote:

Lost wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

I felt like it lacked some real mercy of nature moments to it. You felt like Zack and Gray Mitchell  were lost in the Park, but unlike "Jurassic Park", you felt like they were still really in the Park. It lacked that isolation feeling. You didn't feel cut off from the modern world, because the Park was so modernized. Perhaps it could have felt this way to audiences in theaters in 1993, but I felt there was just something about it that didn't feel right. It felt kinda artificial. Not in the same sense "Jurassic Park ///" did, it felt more "Disneyfied" artificial. That kind of feeling where you're 12 and you're at Disney World with your 5 year old little sibling kind of artificial. The magic is gone. You want to feel it, but you know better, you know it can't last. You put on a face for your family, make them think you're enjoying yourself, but inside, you know that it's all a front. You've seen the documentaries, you know that nothing in "Jurassic World" is real, and that's acknowledged right in the movie by Wu.

I also can't handle the distinct lack of real atmosphere in JW. It doesn't feel right. It feels sterilized. There's an over abundance of shiny metallic surfaces that turns me off from the film on an aesthetics level. It's a good movie, but to me, it lacks that "Jurassic Park" feel that makes it a great Jurassic Park movie. It's like somebody took the Visitor Center kitchen aesthetic and applied it to a whole park. Like I said, sterile. It feels more like an Orlando theme park than the resort of Jurassic Park. I suppose this is a matter of personal preference, but I will always enjoy the resort feel from the first movie more. I'm a guy who enjoys an island resort with thatched roof buildings, rich wooden inlays, and intricately carved thematic pillars. I like being chauffeured around in a spacious American made SUV, seeing dinosaur from the plush comfort of a car seat, and enjoying fine dining in the Visitor Center's buffet. I'll take than any day over the banal. boring, theme park environment that I could get in Orlando, or 6-Flags. I'm a guy with expensive tastes. I will say that one thing I think the designers did for "Jurassic World" that was better than "Jurassic Park" was improving the dinosaur sighting experience. In the old Park, the enclosures were much too big, and you couldn't see anything. I mean, if the test tour was to be your average tour, no thanks. I wouldn't pay that much money to not see dinosaurs. Another complaint I have is about the state of the Visitor Center in "Jurassic World". It's horribly unrecognizable. It wasn't until the boys opened the doors, and they made that "oomph" noise from the first movie that I recognized it as the Visitor Center.

I've always wanted to ask you, what did you think of the San Diego part of TLW? I'm asking because I know you enjoy TLW on many levels and that part kind of sticks out from the rest.

I love it for what it is, I mean I always love more T. rex, but I do believe that the extended Worker Village ending would have been a much more interesting and fantastic ending.

Yeah. Even as a kid I remember wishing they had just stayed on the island the whole movie. The last part is fun entertainment but contrasts too much with the serious tone of the rest of the film.

It felt very fake in terms of trying to be like JP.

To me JP and TLW have the same feel. Although I wonder if that has something to do with me having seen both at almost the same time when I was 6,7 years old.

JP3 was 4 years later and JW 14 years later than that so they don't have quite that same JP and TLW feel for me. Although I still think this has to do more with nostalgia.